Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2
Date
Msg-id c85599fe-859e-308a-2393-6c1c4f533117@oss.nttdata.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2
List pgsql-hackers

On 2020/04/21 17:15, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:26:16 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in
>> Patch attached. I will add this into the first CF for v14.
> 
> -            if (!fast_promoted)
> +            if (!promoted)
>                   RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_END_OF_RECOVERY |
>                                     CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE |
>                                     CHECKPOINT_WAIT);
> 
> If we don't find the checkpoint record just before, we don't insert
> End-Of-Recovery record then run an immediate chekpoint.  I think if we
> nuke the non-fast promotion, shouldn't we insert the EOR record even
> in that case?

I'm not sure if that's safe. What if the server crashes before the checkpoint
completes in that case? Since the last checkpoint record is not available,
the subsequent crash recovery will fail. This would lead to that the server
will never start up. Right? Currently ISTM that end-of-recovery-checkpoint
is executed to avoid such trouble in that case.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Juan José Santamaría Flecha
Date:
Subject: Re: PG compilation error with Visual Studio 2015/2017/2019
Next
From: The Dude
Date:
Subject: [SSPI] Windows group support